![]() ![]() This article delves into the theoretical and practical aspects of proving damages for lost earning capacity in a professional sports career. An important public policy question is whether a private association should be allowed to regulate the attorney-client relationship, particularly in ways that are in direct conflict with the Model Rules of Professional Conduct, when no state bar or state supreme court has given the association the power or authority to do so. ![]() ![]() This paper addresses the following institutional barriers to ethical behavior: (1) NCAA restrictions that prohibit an athlete from (i) having a lawyer communicate or negotiate a contract with professional club personnel on the athlete's behalf (Bylaw 12.3.2.1) and (ii) entering an agreement with a lawyer to perform such services (Bylaw 12.3.1), both of which limit a lawyer’s ability to effectively represent the interests of the client and (2) the NCAA Eligibility Center’s Questionnaire sent to drafted baseball players in conjunction with the NCAA’s “Unethical Conduct” rule (Bylaw 10.1), which compels a lawyer’s client to divulge confidential information and communications related to the representation. NCAA rules not only place restrictions on their ability to “test the waters” but also to retain counsel and have counsel speak to, and negotiate with, club personnel on their behalf. In this regard, I am referring to the ability of a high school or college athlete to make a fully informed decision whether to sign a professional contract. The NCAA does not directly regulate lawyers but it does so indirectly by regulating the lawyer’s client in a manner that has an adverse effect on the lawyer’s representation of the client to the disadvantage of the client. ![]() This paper analyzes the economics of college coaches’ contracts and uses it as justification and support for universities to look closer at their legal options, rights and remedies. The purpose of this paper is not to criticize how much money coaches make, but to encourage our public academic institutions, which owe a moral and ethical duty to their student bodies, their student-athletes and society at large, to exercise fiscal responsibility and restraint by simply deterring their coaches from breaching their contractual obligations and their competitors from interfering with contractual relations. #Fifa manager 13 money cheat free#The schools continue to reward coaches with contract extensions and salary raises after one winning season, and schools remain liable for the coach’s guaranteed salary for the remainder of the term when they terminate him without cause the schools also, however, let coaches walk away at will and go work for, and be solicited by, their competitors with impunity.6 To be certain, this is not representative of free market competition, but rather unfair competition. College coaches are not at-will employees they promise to perform exclusively for the school for a period of years in exchange for an exorbitant guaranteed salary for the duration of that period.5 The problem is that these contracts are a one-way street from an enforcement standpoint. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |